Haven't posted in a while, but decided to log in and give my thoughts on the latest BOS-LAC rumors.
I REALLY like this rumored trade! But not for the reasons most people do.
Yes, we get two firsts, two young guys with good potential, and a temporary fix to our rebounding problems. That's great. All of those things would really help our team. However, I like this trade for two simple reasons: POINTS AND TURNOVERS!
We can talk all about offensive rebounding, defense, passing, athleticism, basketball IQ., etc., but, when it comes down to it, the more opportunities you get to score points, and the more points you score, the better chance you have of winning.
Neither turns the ball over much. Bledsoe, for a PG, doesn't. Jordan is an upgrade over KG in the turnover aspect. While KG passes more and has more opportunities to commit turnovers, at the end of the day, he still has more turnovers. Plus, I don't think KG should be given the opportunities to pass because I don't think we should pass him the ball (hear me out).
With the introduction of sabermetrics into the sporting world, people have leaned towards a more scientific approach to sports. After reading this --->>>
http://www.advancednflstats.com/2009/09/4th-down-study-part-1.html (VERY INTERESTING!) article on why you should go for it on fourth down in football, I thought that similar thinking SHOULD apply to basketball as well!
Points win games, plain and simple. Okay, so should we simply look at players who have the highest PPG? No. If you take 40 shots a game, of course you'll score a lot of points. So is FG% the best indicator? Yes! It comes down too how many points per shot you make. For example, a bad 3PT shooter shoots about .300%, let's say. If his 2PT FG% is .449%, wouldn't it make sense to have him NOT shoots 3PT shots? NO! It's all about expected points based on FG%. If you took 1000 3 pointers and made 300 of them (.300%), you'd acquire 900 points. If you took 1000 2 pointers and made 449 of them (.449%), you'd only acquire 898 points. When you have guys like DeAndre Jordan, a lot of people may say that his FG% is inflated because all his shots are at the rim. But who cares? Who contributes more in the points department: someone who scores 1286 points per 1000 shots (Jordan), or someone who scores just under 1000 (Garnett)?
So what exactly am I suggesting? I am suggesting we keep things simple and build, not around necessarily young players or "stars", but players who will acquire the maximum amount of points with the minimum amount of shots. Players who don't turn the ball over a lot. Have players play to their strengths and forget EVERYTHING else. If you score more per shot shooting 3 pointers, shoot ONLY 3 pointers. At the rim? Shoot ONLY at the rim. Statistically, you'll score more points. Will you be predictable? Yes. But all the greatest Celtics teams were predictable, it never stopped them. Hell, Rondo is predictable in that players know he'll go to the rim. He still does it with success.
If we kept things simple and acquired players who gave us the best PPS, we'd score more and win more games. Now, am I saying go crazy and acquire ALL 3 point shooters? No. For example, DeAndre Jordan would be better than acquiring a center who shot .400% on 3 pointers. They would acquire 1200 points per 1000 3 pointers, while Jordan would acquire 1286 points per 1000 shots at the rim.
While Gordon isn't an IDEAL fit for what I am proposing, Jordan is. He scores points, plain and simple.
I'll most likely get chastised for this, but I think it's an interesting idea. I believe that it would certainly fortify our offense.
Topic: Why I like the Clippers/Celtics Rumored Trade (Read 7102 times)